• Journal of the Korean Operations Research and Management Science Society
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.115-129
• /
• 2003

This paper suggests that the profit sharing contract can be Pareto optimal for both supplier and the purchaser. It is shown that Pareto optimal risk sharing contract can be obtained even though the decisions are made in a decentralized manner. The effect of risk attitude of the members of the supply chain is discussed. We examined various aspects of the risk sharing contract such as risk altitude, bargaining power, and cost of information system. The different risk attitude changes the optimal parameters and decision variables. Especially, we proved that, when both the supplier and the purchaser are risk averse, the purchaser orders less quantity than when the one is risk neutral and the other is risk averse. If the fixed cost for the information system is big enough to satisfy a certain condition, it is Pareto optimal not to share the profit and the purchaser takes all the risk even though he is risk averse.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.66
• /
• pp.47-73
• /
• 2015

This study primarily concerns the fundamental breach of contract by a seller and a buyer's two remedies that are entitled to under the CISG. Regarding the breach of contract, the CISG simply provides a list of each party's obligations and regulates that both parties should fulfill the obligations under the contract as well as the Convention. When the CISG specifies the remedies for both parties, it requires to divide the fundamental breach of contract from breach of contract. By doing so, it provides different remedies to both parties depending on whether it is the fundamental breach of contract or not. From the point of buyer's view, the buyer has two remedies when there is the fundamental breach of contract by the seller; they are the right to declare the avoidance of contract and to require the delivery of substitute goods. The fundamental breach of contract is a pre-requisite condition to be fulfilled in order to exercise these two remedies. Although the CISG provides the definition of fundamental breach of contract, its meaning is not clear enough, so it is interpreted and applied case by case. Therefore, this paper will analyze recent cases focusing on the most debated issues regarding the interpretation of fundamental breach of contract; first, who determines the substantial deprivation and when is the time for determination, second, when is the time for unpredictability of substantial deprivation, and last, who has a burden of proof.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.67-85
• /
• 2009

In English Law it seems that it is essential to apply the principle of equilibrium in the contract, however, it does not seemed to apply as the general rule of the principle of contract. Especially it seems that English Court didn't pay attention to the principle of equilibrium in 18th century. If one of the party do not appeal the equilibrium of the contract, it does not make any difference even today. However the Court may cancel or withdraw the construction of contract between the parties where the principle of equilibrium is damaged by fundamental problems like just-price. In French Law it seems that they have more wide definition of the principle of equilibrium. The French Court may consider that the application of good faith is the performance of condition of the contract between the parties and has no power to relieve of one party of his expressed obligations or warranty. In German Law, it seems that the principle of good faith is fundamental to take into account interest of the parties. They may agree to supply information or not to interfere with a commercial agent regarding performance and maintenance of the contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.63
• /
• pp.3-24
• /
• 2014

This paper focuses on the formation of contract under CISG through the case by the Korean court. Under the CISG, an offer means that a proposal for concluding a contact constitutes the offer, if it is sufficiently definite and indicates the intention of the offeror to be bound in case of acceptance. An acceptance is statement made by or other conduct of the offeree indicating assent to an offer, and this statement purports to be an acceptance but contains additional or different terms which do not materially alter the terms of the offer constitutes an acceptance. In practice, parties negotiate for lots of contract terms to conclude the contract, and the last reply indicating of assent which is made by statement or other conduct to a proposal for concluding a contract would be an acceptance. At this time the most important factor is the intention of parties whether they intend the offer or the acceptance, Purchase order by buyer or Offer Sheet by seller would be understand as condition precedent for the formation of contract. Nevertheless, keep in mind that the Korean court is consistent in the way Purchase order by buyer or Offer Sheet by seller is an acceptance to conclude contract.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.152-177
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This study analyses the excepted requirement and burden of proof of the carrier due to unseaworthiness through comparison between the marine transport contract and marine insurance contract. Design/methodology - This study uses the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves reviewing and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problems. In this study a literature analysis using academic literature and internet data is conducted. Findings - The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault, not proved fault. The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier, and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage contract. In other words, the insurer cannot escape coverage for unfitness of a vessel which arises while the vessel is at sea, which the assured could not have prevented in the exercise of due diligence. The insurer bears the burden of proving unseaworthiness. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied in hull, but not protection and indemnity policies. The 2015 Act repeals ss. 33(3) and 34 of MIA 1906. Otherwise the provisions of the MIA 1906 remain in force, including the definition of a promissory warranty and the recognition of implied warranties. There is less clarity about the position when the source of the loss occurs before the breach of warranty but the actual loss is suffered after the breach. Nonetheless, by s.10(2) of the 2015 Act the insurer appears not to be liable for any loss occurring after the breach of warranty and before there has been a remedy. Originality/value - When unseaworthiness is identified after the sailing of the vessel, mere acceptance of the ship does not mean the party waives any claims for damages or the right to terminate the contract, provided that failure to comply with the contractual obligations is of critical importance. The burden of proof with regards to loss of damage to a cargo caused by unseaworthiness is regulated by the applicable law. For instance, under the common law, if the cargo claimant alleges that the loss or damage has been caused by unseaworthiness, then he has the burden of proof to establish the followings: (i) that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; and that, (ii) that the loss or damage has been caused by such unseaworthiness. In other words, if the warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage is breached, the breach voids the policy if the ship owner had prior knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. By contrast, knowingly permitting the vessel to break ground in an unseaworthy condition denies liability only for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthiness. Such a breach does not, therefore, void the entire policy, but only serves to exonerate the insurer for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthy condition.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.19
• /
• pp.67-93
• /
• 2003

The CISG approach was intended to make the remedial system clear, but produced ambiguity, and complexity. The CISG does not differentiate between main, auxiliary and participatory obligations. There is no distinction between breaches of main or breaches of auxiliary obligations, rather, a distinction is made between fundamental and other breaches of contract. Articles 25 gives the definition of fundamental breach of contract. This concept is the essential of avoidance and remedial system in the CISG. This concept, however, is ambiguous. The fact that the fundamentality of a breach of contract in many cases is the condition for an avoidance of contract, is expression of the trend of the CISG to preserve contracts, which I consider as essential in international trade. The elements which define a substantial detriment are extremely complex. It will become obvious that the relevant detriment is not a static element, but in many instances occurs only when the breach of contract continues. It should be added that it is the circumstances of each individual case which are relevant. It is to be stressed that a fundamental breach of contract must constitute also a non-fulfillment of a contractual obligation.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.9 no.7
• /
• pp.325-332
• /
• 2009

The Korean real estate transaction makes a contract after the buying and selling person concerned agreed a business condition. As for vendee, business consists of the method that I issue documents before provision and money left over provision and the registration at the same time, and register a contract deposit in vendor. However, it latent for the real estate transaction various accidents such as fraud from a contract day to time to finish a real estate registration transfer, embezzlement, double contract by the breach of trust. Nevertheless vendee comes to match vendor by an asymmetry of the information one-sidedly to the front completing a registration transfer. I may prevent stellionate by the breach of trust of vendor if I use an ESCROW system in such a responsibility blank state.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.135-153
• /
• 2012

Incoterms is a standard transaction terms and conditions which is established to provide goods delivery, cost and risks between the seller and the buyer as a principle concerned. Incoterms is made of international rules about regular uses of transaction terms and condition. It removes uncertainty of misunderstanding and applying rules, commercial customs and etc, between nations. Incoterms does not have an enforcement like an unified rules or an agreements established between different nations. Therefore, it is just considered as a standard formal terms and conditions from International Chamber of Commerce. For those reasons, validity of Incoterms applies only when parties of contract come to an agreement not by officially adopted or applied by law in each nation. Incoterms 2010 contains specific and clear articles which is fixed version of incoterms 2000, it has insufficient points on insurance contract article. Though, insurance contract belongs to sales contract, it sustains independence itself. It is difficult to sustain perfection until establishment of insurance contract and expiration by fixing the articles. As a result, it is necessary for sellers and buyers take a full responsibility of making complete insurance contract. This paper is written for those reasons in this filed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• pp.213-245
• /
• 2014

This study has significance in examining the formation requirements and notes for concluding the guarantee contract of minimizing interests and conflicts with the concerned parties by examining issues related to the legal relation and demand payment in the concerned parties and by figuring out the provisions of conformity related to the requirements for demand payment pertinent to the documentary provision in relation to characteristics of demand guarantee. What the concerned parties of using demand guarantee grasp the requirements for demand payment of being compliant with the essence and the guarantee condition of the demand guarantee will lead to possibly preventing a dispute caused by disagreement and being secured the fulfillment of underlying contract. To fulfill a underlying contract that is the objective of issuing the demand guarantee, an effort is needed that minimizes a contract-based risk and a cost by being fully aware of a relevant rule that will be recorded in the terms of payment in the demand guarantee, by reflecting the interests between the concerned parties, and by discussing the payment terms.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Railway
• /
• v.8 no.5
• /
• pp.460-469
• /
• 2005

Turnkey contract system is an effective ordering system for the ordering organizations that technical engineers are insufficient for their construction projects. It is possible to reduce project duration and to improve project quality in an integrated contract system between design and construction. However, owners can have a difficulty caused from unitary responsibility system. This study analyzes present situation and problems of turnkey contract system including railway projects. The result includes various methods for improving the system based on the analysis of bid price and selection procedure.